(1.) Smt. Chinta Mani and her minor female child have approached this Court on revision assailing the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Juge, Kalpa Sub-Division, Kalpa, dated 9th January, 1968 rejecting their claim under section 488, Cr. P.C. for maintenance against Shri Jagat Singh (respondent in this Court) who has been stated to be the father of the female child and who has lived with Smt Chinta Mani as her husband.
(2.) The claim proceedings were, I am informed, initially instituted in the Nayaya Panchayat, Kalpa, but under section 63 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Rai Act, those proceedings were transferred to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the controversy. I am informed by the -learned counsel appearing in this case that though in section 63 the Court is described as that of the Magistrate, he really functions as Sub- Divisional.judge while dealing with proceedings like the present. As nothing turns on this description, I need not say anything on this point.
(3.) The learned Sub-Divisional Judge has summarised the evidence of the parties led before him and has in the end expressed his opinion in the following words :-